Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your God tortures people for eternity after they die. Hell*, even Hitler and Stalin only caused a finite amount of suffering. Your God is the last guy I'd consult about morality.
Saying that we evolved in a certain way does not mean that something is moral or not.
If you're not able to answer the question, ok. I get it.
So is this the reason that you do not answer my question? Your response here reminds me of some of the YEC to dismiss what they thought was not good answers.
So is it ever morally wrong to stone to death an adultress? Or some one who works in the field on the Sabbath?
So is this the reason that you do not answer my question? Your response here reminds me of some of the YEC to dismiss what they thought was not good answers.
I'll be happy to answer your question.
Quote:
So is it ever morally wrong to stone to death an adultress? Or some one who works in the field on the Sabbath?
In the context in which God commanded it, no. It was not morally wrong.
You think it is? So what? Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. You have no authority to determine it to be morally right, or morally wrong. That's what it really comes down to. So to sit back and try to determine if something is moral or immoral without an objective, absolute standard? It's laughable. It's the blind leading the blind.
If you make a car and put a switch on the dash....who designed it? It wasn't me! Sure...I can whine about not getting to decide what to use it for...but only the one who actually put it there decided already what it was for. It's not a matter of opinion. It's that way because the designer designed it that way. It's a matter of design--of fact. In today's world, however, we have all sorts of people stating opinions about that which they had no part in designing.
You want an objective moral truth? Is it ever morally good for me to torture babies to death for no other purpose except my personal pleasure? I, of course, say no. Because that is an objective moral truth. But can you?
Of course it is morally good to torture babies. Your God is doing it right now to every non-Christian who died as a baby. Since God designed the universe, it is perfectly moral for him to do so (according to you).
I want to know what line you are willing to draw. We all know that there are some things that are wrong regardless of the opinion of society. You don't seem willing to admit that.
I, personally would agree. Some things are wrong, no matter what society says. But I still don't know why we need God in order to have morality.
Assuming for a moment that you are 100% correct about the nature of God and the Bible:
Would you have any reason to think that a science of morality would be impossible? If a science of morality is possible, and assuming that we did successfully develop a good scientific theory of morality, would you expect this theory to confirm the Biblical precepts of morality? I'm going to assume, for the moment that you will say yes. In which case I would ask: Then, in principle, science could arrive at the same moral precepts as those offered in the Bible. If that's true, then wouldn't it be the case that, after all, we didn't really need a particular conception of God, or the writings of the Bible, in order to arrive at the correct moral precepts?
Is there any reason to think that God would purposefully design the universe in such a way so that the scientific method could not possibly zero in on the correct (or, at least, a reasonably adequate) moral theory?
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-20-2015 at 01:30 PM..
I, personally would agree. But I still don't know why we need God in order to have morality.
Assuming for a moment that you are 100% correct about the nature of God and the Bible:
Would you have any reason to think that a science of morality would be impossible? If a science of morality is possible, and assuming that we did successfully develop a good scientific theory of morality, would you expect this theory to confirm the Biblical precepts of morality? I'm going to assume, for the moment that you will say yes. In which case I would ask: Then, in principle, science could arrive at the same moral precepts as those offered in the Bible. If that's true, then wouldn't it be the case that, after all, we didn't really need a particular conception of God, or the writings of the Bible in order to arrive at the correct moral precepts? Just curious.
Where do you think morality comes from? That's what I'm after. Is it just an innate property of this universe? Or is it something that is determined by a being?
The concept of morality comes from God. It becomes legitimate because God exists and establishes a purpose for our existence.
Only indirectly . . . God establishes our purpose and our purpose defines morality. What is constructive to our purpose is moral. What is destructive to our purpose is immoral. What has nothing to do with our purpose is amoral.
That is absolute and unwavering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
That's what moral codes are designed to do. They are not a list of rules imposed arbitrarily by a god.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Then under your system, no one can really be said to be moral or immoral.
You ignore the standard under which there can be no arbitrary morality . . . our purpose for existing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If society decides that it is a good and moral thing to torture babies for no reason other than the individual doing it wants to do it for their own personal pleasure.....is that wrong?
It is wrong to torture babies for ANY reason, Vizio . . . except under your God's morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
If a God in a storybook slaughters millions of innocent children because he had a tantrum...is that ok?
You will not get an answer from Vizio on these pointed questions. His capricious God is always moral according to Vizio . . . just because He is God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
He does it because he's well aware that the God he believes is the font of morality, is the same God that slaughtered millions of innocents.
The diff, according to Pastor Vizio, is that God had a good reason and even if he didn't, he can do whatever he wants and we can't question it.
So there!
Yep . . . you nailed it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The reason that I say "for pleasure" is to remove any possibility of an extenuating circumstance, such as someone trying to justify it being for the greater good. The argument is whether or not it's ever justified for no reason other than the one doing the act simply wanting to do it.
It is NEVER justified, Vizio . . . NEVER! Any morality that proclaims it could EVER be moral is itself immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Really seems weird. Do you know a bunch of people secretly wishing to off a bunch of babies and just restraining themselves because god says it's immoral?
I have more confidence that this will never be an issue for society than I would if morality was dictated by your god, since he did it for reasons not much better than fun and games and since, between the Old Testament and the New Testamnet, he even changed his mind about what is and isn't moral for humans.
Vizio is NOT reasoning and his answers have nothing to do with reason . . . just blind faith and assertions that whatever he believes his God says or does is moral, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
And has any non believer ever said that is was sometimes morally right to torture babies for fun and pleasure? And what does not believing that torturing babies for fun is wrong have to do with getting our morals from a God?
Nothing. It has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
sounds like an attempt to set up a word trap.
Is it absolutely morally wrong to stone to death a adultress? YEs or No?
You will not get an answer to this question either. He would have to abandon his absolute stance to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I want to know what line you are willing to draw. We all know that there are some things that are wrong regardless of the opinion of society. You don't seem willing to admit that.
You are the one who is unwilling to admit that your God's whims and caprice are NO basis for an absolute morality that never changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If you're not able to answer the question, ok. I get it.
The only one unable to answer questions here is you, Vizio.
Where do you think morality comes from? That's what I'm after. Is it just an innate property of this universe? Or is it something that is determined by a being?
Why not innate? We see it all the time in the animal kingdom. Mothers protect their young, in most species. Why not our own?
Why not innate? We see it all the time in the animal kingdom. Mothers protect their young, in most species. Why not our own?
OK....mothers protecting their young. Do they do it because it's the moral thing to do? Or do they do it because they're born with an instinct to do so? Do you believe morality is simply an instinct?
In the context in which God commanded it, no. It was not morally wrong.
You think it is? So what? Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. You have no authority to determine it to be morally right, or morally wrong. That's what it really comes down to. So to sit back and try to determine if something is moral or immoral without an objective, absolute standard? It's laughable. It's the blind leading the blind.
I certainly cannot have your morals nor do I wish anyone else to. I really don't care if morals are objective and absolute or subjective as long as they are moral. Your God commanding stoning to death and Christians not following it for whatever reason shows that the morality of stoning to death for adultry or breaking the Sabbath were not absolute but at his whim. If you have to use context than it is not absolute, is not that the game literalists normally play.
When I was a teenager I thought homosexualtiy was immoral and now I know I was totally wrong about that so I do think that not having absolute morality is not necessarily bad.
Stoning to death some one who works on the Sabbath or has committed adultry is moraly wrong in my opinion. I do not care if you think that only your God has that abiltiy, he is not the only god or goddess and he or she does not even exist so who cares. Drowning or burning babies is wrong no matter if it is soldiers, terrorists, deranged parents or God doing it. That is my take on morality. And what about the morality of the other Gods or is it only yours that counts. And is that not the height of arrogance?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
